Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2013, 11:32:I still fail to see how allowing Mickey Mouse or the Beatles catalog to be public use encourages innovation. It seems to actually do the opposite.

Yes, Walt Disney is still sitting on Mickey Mouse rather than creating new characters. But other people are forced to create new characters rather than use Mickey Mouse.

To be fair, people can do anything they want with Santa Claus and other non-copyrighted characters, and we have a wide variety of creations that do make some use of them, including porn. I don't see why other creations should be locked up forever either.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2013, 11:32:I still fail to see how allowing Mickey Mouse or the Beatles catalog to be public use encourages innovation. It seems to actually do the opposite.

Yes, Walt Disney is still sitting on Mickey Mouse rather than creating new characters. But other people are forced to create new characters rather than use Mickey Mouse.

Disney has over the years lobbied for copyright extensions to keep Mickey Mouse and other properties from going in to the public domain. They also have trademarks to protect against the characters from ever being used by another company.

TheVocalMinority wrote on Jan 3, 2013, 01:29:Commercials currently don't all contain the most popular music out of copy-write so this is obviously nonsense.

And why is that?Because the vast majority of music people want to hear is not out of copyright. It's probably fair to blanket it that NO popular music is out of copyright. How much do you even know if you don't know the term is "copyright?"

Nice work turning the argument on it's head. The point is that non-commercial restoration/distribution/whatever is enabled through copy-write reform.

Only if the source material is available. Not sure how you think anyone will be able to restore The Outing, a movie unavailable outside of VHS, when the only source available is... VHS. Not much can be done there. And, if someone were to pick up the VHS and try restoring it as a hobby, it's doubtful they'd be stopped.

Shorter copyright terms will mean more long term innovation in pretty much any field. Once upon a time we rewarded creators while also providing a better future for society as a whole through public use of created works after a reasonable period of time. Those guidelines were drafted long ago and have since been distorted, largely by corporations and not sole content creators.

There's an oft repeated non-sequitur by corporations (you see it a lot in the banking world) that drastic things will occur to the world economy if things like copyright and regulation are examined but it's just a wealth protection scheme.

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2013, 15:00:Suddenly we'd have The Beatles in every single commercial on television, because it'd be free to use them.

Commercials currently don't all contain the most popular music out of copy-write so this is obviously nonsense.

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2013, 15:00:Even with old movies no one cares about, public domain means that every Walmart in America is full of "10 movies for $1!" collections, but since no one makes any money off those movies no one is bothering to restore them. On one hand at least they're readily available. On the other hand the quality is pure trash.

Nice work turning the argument on it's head. The point is that non-commercial restoration/distribution/whatever is enabled through copy-write reform.

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2013, 13:32:So everyone should be able to make a James Bond movie?

Yes.

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2013, 13:32:Or a Toy Story movie?

Yes.

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2013, 13:32:At this point even a Half Life?

Yes.

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2013, 13:32:Half Life 2 is over 3 years old, so we should legally have a Half Life 3 sex game with Alyx and Dog?

The OP said 5 years not 3, and bonus points for the licentious example.

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2013, 13:32:Half Life should be public domain so we should just be able to get it off the internet without paying Valve? EA should be able to sell it on Origin without paying them?

Yes. We could even maybe have a *Gasp* non DRM version being sold how about that?

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2013, 13:32:If something still has value the creator should still be able to get value.

"if value, then right" - bullshit. This is not possible to do in any conceivable way in a free society. So I should be paid every time someone repeats some pithy quip I may have thought up?

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2013, 13:32:I can't think of a single argument for how society would be better if Gordon Freeman was public domain. Or if every amusement park in every part of the country suddenly had Mickey Mouse walking around.

You're obviously not thinking too hard, here are a couple off the top of my head, even given your fairly limited list of outcomes from copy-write reform (note I've taken the liberty of removing the pejorative terms from your text):-Increased freedom to produce art works inspired by or including Gordon Freeman or Mickey Mouse, thus contributing to the amount of art available for people to enjoy, and the enjoyment derived from the acts of creating them.-Increased incentive for Valve/Disney to create more original content.-Best case scenario: as a result of this and other effect of copy-write reform Disney dies a horrible death and thus can no longer contribute to the MPAA and thus future lobbying for SOPA and PIPA type of legislation.

Although if you define a better society one in which your masters interests are not threatened then perhaps you would be correct.

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2013, 13:32:At this point even a Half Life? Half Life 2 is over 3 years old, so we should legally have a Half Life 3 sex game with Alyx and Dog?

oh hellz yeah...

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2013, 13:32:Half Life should be public domain so we should just be able to get it off the internet without paying Valve? EA should be able to sell it on Origin without paying them?

If something still has value the creator should still be able to get value. I can't think of a single argument for how society would be better if Gordon Freeman was public domain. Or if every shitty amusement park in every backwoods part of the country suddenly had Mickey Mouse walking around.

Seriously though, I agree with you. I actually think copyright should last a default of about 10 years, and then allow for renewals that must be paid for, and probably with an increase in cost for each renewal. That would keep people from just sitting on things forever, hoping they may come back into vogue at some point, and allow access to things that really aren't worth much to the creator anymore. The pricing would be tricky to work out, as would a lot of other details, but I'm sure it could be done.

I think this is probably an idea that makes sense. Something like Mickey Mouse shouldn't really be eligible to go public domain. I don't particularly think most music should, either. Suddenly we'd have The Beatles in every single commercial on television, because it'd be free to use them.

Even with old movies no one cares about, public domain means that every Walmart in America is full of "10 movies for $1!" collections, but since no one makes any money off those movies no one is bothering to restore them. On one hand at least they're readily available. On the other hand the quality is pure trash.

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2013, 13:32:At this point even a Half Life? Half Life 2 is over 3 years old, so we should legally have a Half Life 3 sex game with Alyx and Dog?

oh hellz yeah...

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2013, 13:32:Half Life should be public domain so we should just be able to get it off the internet without paying Valve? EA should be able to sell it on Origin without paying them?

If something still has value the creator should still be able to get value. I can't think of a single argument for how society would be better if Gordon Freeman was public domain. Or if every shitty amusement park in every backwoods part of the country suddenly had Mickey Mouse walking around.

Seriously though, I agree with you. I actually think copyright should last a default of about 10 years, and then allow for renewals that must be paid for, and probably with an increase in cost for each renewal. That would keep people from just sitting on things forever, hoping they may come back into vogue at some point, and allow access to things that really aren't worth much to the creator anymore. The pricing would be tricky to work out, as would a lot of other details, but I'm sure it could be done.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

Cutter wrote on Jan 2, 2013, 12:18:Those lengths are absurd. More like 5 years at the most would be reasonable.

For public domain?

So everyone should be able to make a James Bond movie? Or a Toy Story movie? At this point even a Half Life? Half Life 2 is over 3 years old, so we should legally have a Half Life 3 sex game with Alyx and Dog?

Half Life should be public domain so we should just be able to get it off the internet without paying Valve? EA should be able to sell it on Origin without paying them?

If something still has value the creator should still be able to get value. I can't think of a single argument for how society would be better if Gordon Freeman was public domain. Or if every shitty amusement park in every backwoods part of the country suddenly had Mickey Mouse walking around.